Love the sinner, hate the sin, deliver their children to the buffetings of Satan

Okay, I’m not a Catholic or a Christian of any ilk, and I fully support the liberty of churches to make their own policies. To me (please note the highlighted qualification, it’s all “make-it-up-as-you-go-along-'My-invisible-friend-likes-me-better-than-he-does-you-stuff” anyway and if it gives some people the courage to get through life that they wouldn’t otherwise have then fine. But this news item seems particularly hateful and extreme to me for reasons I’ll mention in just a sec:

Okay, I wouldn’t want my kid baptized by any shaman, but… here’s why it pisses me off…

I don’t believe in Heaven. I don’t believe in Hell. (I do believe in the existence of Zimmerman, but not in his divinity.) But these people do.

They also believed that a child who is shunned by the church and not baptized can, if it dies, go to limbo. Conceivably, it could grow up and, being unbaptized and thus feeling rejected by the church, die and go to hell, where it will be tormented forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. Priests, at least officially, believe in a literal hell and a purgatory and a limbo-

and they would consign a child there because they hate its parents.

Perhaps it’s me but this is disgusting. I totally understand why they don’t want to sanction homosexuality, I would take up arms to stop the government from forcing them to perform gay marriages (well, this being Canada I probably wouldn’t, but… I’d write a really bitchy rant on this board if it happened), but to say to an innocent baby, the same sort of innocent soul the same pious pissants decry at the destruction of in abortion clinics, that “we renounce you and you are damned for all eternity because we don’t want your faggot parents names on a piece of paper” is just disgusting.

I don’t dispute their right to do it, and personally I don’t think it alters whatever afterlife said babe may or may not have anyway, but they do, and they are willing to let it remain in limbo or burn in hell rather than risk acknowledging what is unalterable, that being that the child’s legal guardians are a same-sex couple. If there is a God I honestly think he’d have pissed on these fuckers from his cross.

But that’s just me.

Low blow in 5…4…3…2…

At least the Catholic Church has nothing against baptizing Jewish kids/

The examples you used are some of the reasons I renounced (outgrew?) my Christian upbringing at a fairly early age. I simply refuse to worship a “deity” who will let a person “go to hell and be tortured for eternity” because the person had never heard of him.

I don’t want to associate with anyone like that.

The Catholic church can, and does, refuse to baptise on a number of grounds. Basically, if at least one of the parents isn’t a practicing Catholic in good standing who can believably commit to making an effort to raise the child in the Catholic faith, they have the duty to “defer” baptism. Theoretically, the parents can repent, stop acting on their sinful impulses and return to the church. So, the Church sees it as the parents’ responsibility to take the first step in getting their kid into heaven. I think the rule is routinely ignored if the child is seriously ill at the time of the request. In the case of sudden death, the child will have to rely, like so many other people, on prayers of intercession.

Most facets of the Christian religion that I’m familiar with say that there are special provisions for those who are never exposed to the Word. Remote jungle tribes, babies and young children who die, etc.

What those provisions are, and the Biblical justifications I don’t know off the top of my head.

Another pyramid scheme.

It’s always seemed interesting to me that so many churches have that “out”, yet you’d think if it were an important tenet they wouldn’t evangelize with missionaries. After all, if the people they’re going to evangelize hadn’t heard of Jesus, they’d get to heaven, but once the missionaries tell them about him, they’re hellbound unless they profess the faith! As far as the whole “getting souls to heaven” thing goes, you’d think NOT evangelizing would put a whole lot more folks inside the Gates…

When my brother was born, my parents gave him a name that is not considered a “Saint’s name”. The priest at first was reluctant to baptize him until he was assured that his middle name was a “Saint’s name”. I’m talkig early 1960s, not the Middle Ages either… I guess they ain’t kidding when they call your given name your "Christian name.

The grandaddy of them all, I’d say.

C’mon…for the Catholic Church, the mid-60s (pre-Vatican II) wasn’t all that far removed from the Middle Ages…

Now, I COULD be remembering this wrong, since it was, Jesus, fourteen years ago? But I seem to recall my confirmation teacher, Father John, saying that anyone could baptize a child. So technically, I guess if the parents were really serious about it, they could baptize the child themselves.

If I’m wrong, I sincerely appologize.

Ah, yes, the evil Catholic Church, consigning infants to hell for the parents’ sin of daring to love each other.
Baptism is a ceremony in which the parents make promises for the child; they affirm on behalf of the child that the child is a Catholic.

How can the parents make such promises if they are not in a state of grace themselves?
If I am currently in a (heterosexual) relationship that has a sexual component to it outside the bounds of marriage, I cannot receive Communion because of this. Any Confession I give would be invalid because I am unrepentant about this. While I could find a priest who would give me a wafer, it still wouldn’t be Communion. If I were to adopt a child, it is possible that I would not (ought not) be permitted to baptize the child until I was shriven, exactly the same as a homosexual couple. How can I be expected to raise my child Catholic if I don’t live like a Catholic myself?
While I find this position to be cruel on its face, it is consistent. Again, what it all comes down to is people wanting to be members of a club without having to pay dues.

Besides, if you believe that the Catholic Church cannot condemn a homosexual to Hell for having the feelings with which he was born, then why get all up in arms about an unbaptized child? You’re refusing to accept the Church’s authority in one regard yet courting it in another?

Doesn’t make sense.

I think Sampiro explained very articulatly his position on the Catholic Church and that he is not in fact courting the church’s authority on anything. I’d say it is the fact that it is “cruel on its face” that he’s objecting to. He obviously doesn’t think any kids are going to hell because of this, just marveling at the fact that human beings would adhere to a system with which such a cruel idea was “consistent”.

He did. And, to Sampiro, the policy is cruel on its face.
The other way of looking at it is that it is irresponsible to expect those who actively flout Church law to raise their child to adhere to the same law.

No one is keeping the child from becoming a Catholic- the Church is just expressing its disbelief that a parent or parents outside a state of grace will be able to raise the child in a state of grace.

The child will have to make his own decision as to whether to become Catholic, which isn’t so bad, is it?

I don’t like the ruling. It comes across as “punishing” the child for the “sins” of the parents (yes I know there is an Old Testament “precedent” for it). But, it’s their church, their rules. The child can choose at some later time to be baptized, if he/she wants to. If people really do believe in a just,merciful and loving God, it all becomes irrelevant anyway.

From where I sit that’s pretty much the size of it.

“Michael Rizzi, do you renounce Satan?”

How can the priest determine if anybody is in a state of grace? Isn’t that between them and God ultimately?

So (and I’m asking here, I don’t know) the Catholic Church doesn’t baptize any illegitimate children? Or the children of mob bosses? Or the children of adulterers, criminals, etc…?

Were I a theologian I would argue that the church can’t condemn anybody to hell anymore than they can assure them of heaven- that’s God’s call (it was in issue 182, between God’s fight with the Lizard Demon of Zenduba and the time St. Linus became his new apprentice). But be that as it may, I don’t dispute their right to make up any rules they want to- they can say everybody in Des Moines is bound for Hell for all I care (hell, they’ve said it of England and other countries), but it’s the- I won’t say cruelty so much as evil- that irritates me. They will let a child be potentially damned because his parents are openly rather covertly living in violation of the Church’s teachings (the whole “no man is without sin” thing being cast by the wayside).

Oh, yes. I practiced my emergency baptism for long hours, all for nothing. These hypothetical parents will finally get to use theirs.

Isn’t that a Godfather quote? It is strange that they will baptize the children of gangsters and killers but not teh gay. You think like I do, in that the church can not save or damn anyone. We were taught (in a Catholic school) that only you can damn yourself, and it has to be deliberate.

Of course, it is very likely that many of those who are proselytized will not convert. Therefore, any attempt to proselytize will condemn many to hell who would not otherwise have gone to hell.

Ergo, it is evil for the church to proselytize. :cool:

Not really. I was taught that Baptism was the one sacrament any Baptized Catholic could perform. I would assume that the parents could Baptize the child themsleves, thereby saving the tyke from eternal damnation. I could be wrong about that, having learned ny Catholic Theology from the nuns in Catholic school-- I often thought they made a lot of stuff up. Anyone know for sure on this?